Sounds like an agenda exists where DOM is not welcome. Maybe this is a wise choice, but then again, maybe it is due to some ignorance. I wish I was more of an expert on the details of XML parsing, but I would liken your (and others objections) to the DOM as being "ugly" to my first impressions of Swing. Coming from the Delphi world, I thought Swing was very ugly and made me work twice as hard as I should of. In the end, I was simply ignorant of the design principals behind Swing.
I have been watching JDOM with interest since it was first announced, and I have been subscribed to the mailing list since early this year. JDOM is not a strike against the DOM, in fact I would say that it is an reaffirmation of DOM. They recognize that working directly with DOM is unwieldy and that the current XML specifications contain a good deal of complexity that most developers can do without. Regardless of your final choice on an internal model structure for Ant 2.0, I would urge you to develop with interfaces in mind. Please allow different implementations to coexist and be submitted to the Build engine. If done properly, you should be able to allow both object model implementations or DOM implementations to peacefully co-exist. jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:34 AM Subject: RE: Anteater... I'm Baaaack... > At 11:27 14/12/00 -0500, James Cook wrote: > >If the only object to DOM is overhead then I think we have a topic for > >discussion. As a developer, I have a few XML parsers (Xerces, Sun's parser > >that is packaged with JAXP, JDOM) installed, and they all support DOM. I > >think we have to remember that this is a developer tool. Why restrict its > >simplicity and elegance by throwing out a perfectly acceptable library? I > >don't understand the objection, especially when you look at Simeon's elegant > >use of DOM in Antidote. > > Okay how about W3C DOM is > * clumsy and unwield to use > * complex and hard to maintain > * built for extreme cross platform capability - something Ant doesn't need > * oh did I say it was ugly to use ;) > * ugly > etc. > > Have you looked at www.jdom.org ? If not have a look at it. That is a > response to the utter failing of DOM in java. I am still using an old > version but it is much much much easier to use. > > >> W3C DOM will never get into core. Waaaaaay to[sic] much overhead. > > > >Is this already a done deal? I don't have voting priveleges, but has this > >been voted down before? > > Nope not voted on but if it were it would be -1'ed - So really no point to > vote on it ;) > > Cheers, > > Pete > > *-----------------------------------------------------* > | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | > | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | > | everyone gets busy on the proof." | > | - John Kenneth Galbraith | > *-----------------------------------------------------* > >
